Sunday, November 30, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Amazing Richard Williams
In this day and age when a majority of black families are without fathers, we should all take notice when one not only rises from the ashes, but also attains great fame and fortune in the process. There are several families that come to mind-The Jackson Family, headed by Joe Jackson; The Marsalis family, piloted by father Ellis; and the Williams family, led by the incomparable Richard Williams.
What Richard Williams accomplished could quite easily be called impossible. Raising his family in Compton, California, one of the worse ghettos in the nation, Williams dedicated his life to his two daughters Venus and Serena. So many doubted him-yet he continued to train his daughters to be the best tennis players in the world. I have to admit what I know about the man is limited to information I gather from the internet, but my desire is to know so much more. He should be a beacon to all in the black community-both men and women alike. He stood face to face with racism and poverty and managed to never blink. Not only did he survive, but he triumphed where so many have failed, (or never bothered to try).
So much negativity is directed toward black men in this country. A lot of that negativity is adopted by black women and black men, in the attempts to remain the patriarch of their families, catch hell because of it. I know, I've lived it. Whatever her reasons, Oracene trusted Richard and, from what I can see, stood behind him every step of the way. I know how hard it is to see the sun that shines on Wimbledon, the U.S. Open, and Roland Garros from the mean streets of Compton, but Richard saw it and Oracene believed. I'm not saying that it was a walk down easy street for her-I'm just saying she, at some point, believed in his dream. Many men fall prey to non believing women who sabotage their attempts to garner success in whatever field they strive. Again, I've experienced it first hand.
It would seem like the world, both black and white, would embrace a man like Richard Williams as a true American hero. But he still receives the cold shoulder from the media, and I don't hear much about him in the black community either. All we ever focus on is the fruit (e.g. Venus and Serena) and not the tree that produced that fruit. I can understand the white worlds trepidation-Richard wasn't supposed to rise above the systematic poverty that grips the inner-city. He was supposed to succumb to gun violence, drugs, crime, or have his spirit crushed by the constant presence of the suppressive police force that harasses and abuses inner-city black males on a daily basis. He and his daughters were never supposed to take the world stage and dominate a sport that is reserved for the wealthy and elite of this nation. But, as Richard so eloquently put it when Venus defeated Lindsay Davenport at Wimbledon in the year 2000, Straight outta Compton!" and his family never looked back.
What Richard Williams represents is what the world would have to face if the black family had not been so devastated by welfare in the 60's and 70's, the crack epidemic in the 80's and AIDS in the 90's and the present. If so many black fathers hadn't got caught up in the drug game and so many black mothers in the blame game, the world would see an emergence of successful black athletes, politicians, musicians, physicians, scientists, etc. Euro-centric history doesn't teach us about the great black civilizations that existed when Europeans were in their dark ages but men like Richard Williams, Earl Woods (father of golf great Tiger Woods), and James Jordan, Sr. (Michael Jordan's dad), are examples of the greatness we could once again achieve if we focused on rebuilding our family structure. All too often we face opposition both inside the home and out. Many black men choose to leave the family structure in search of peace. I know I've walked away from many a relationship because of the constant battle I faced with women who seemed hell bent on existing in an impoverished state. The question I always faced was, "Why do you think you're better than everyone else?" Well, because I am. We all are. We can all do better if we'd just try.
I hope that one day someone will make a movie about Richard Williams, before he's no longer with us. We should celebrate people while they are amongst us so that they know we appreciate their hard work and dedication. Richard Williams is not only a credit to the Williams' family and the afro community, but he's a credit to the human race. He managed to wade through the societal muck and emerge victorious! I congratulate the man. I am in deep awe of what he has accomplished and we should all strive to be like Richard Williams.
TPOKW?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Silliness and the Sagging Pants
To sag, or not to sag, that is the question. Ok, maybe not. I think it's safe to say that none of my regular reader(s) wear sagging pants-but hopefully that will change. Frankly, I don't care what you wear, as long as you read and comment. I do, however, have an opinion about sagging pants-I think it's dumb. That being said, I think those who choose this style of fashion have the right to express themselves in this manner. I may find it ridiculous, but that's just me.
Here's what President Elect Barack Obama had to say on the matter:
This is what brings me to the silliness of the sagging pants-laws preventing individuals from sagging never saved anyone's lives. And as the P.E. so eloquently stated, there are much larger issues that we should be tackling. Healthcare, education, war and poverty should be higher on the list. If you live in a city where this ordinance was passed and your public school system is a non productive group of buildings occupying land, you should vote your local lawmakers out of office. Must we attempt to legislate every nuance of social behavior?
At first glance, mandating young men pull up their pants sounds like a good idea. But I've seen the television show Cops and just about every fleeing, sagging suspect is betrayed by pants that end up around their knees. For the fat, out of shape, donut devouring law enforcement officers, this is a blessing in disguise. The playing field has now been leveled by a fashion statement. No longer do they have to chase the swift-footed perpetrators through vacant lots and alley ways. After a couple of strides, pants end up around ankles and the pursuit is over.
For me, there's nothing worse than seeing a young male (black or otherwise-black males aren't the only saggers), with his boxers bunched up and the waist band of his pants damn near around his thighs. I often wonder if they keep their brain back there. What heterosexual male wants to see another man's underpants? I certainly don't. Furthermore, what statement are you making? What are you attempting to communicate? I fail to get the message. I surmise it's a way of thumbing your nose at society for social disenfranchisement. Ok, I feel the rebellious sentiment. My generation opted for long hair. But we also read, and studied, and knew things other than what car P-Diddy drove, or who was sheboinking Rhianna. We had an idea of the struggle of black folks and what might be necessary to turn things around. We cared. Generation Sag seem not to care about tomorrow. Their complete focus is on the bling, or how to come up, no matter what the communal price might be.
Don't get me wrong, I considered the sag when it first hit the scene-but then I stopped myself and asked, "Does my mother, or my children need to see me in this light?" Not to mention the fact that I didn't really identify with the crowd that sagged. I've always seen myself as an intellectual (to a certain degree), and those who sagged seemed disinterested in knowledge. Most saggers could be seen on the street corner-I never cared for hanging out on the street. That's not to say that there aren't individuals with high I.Q.'s sagging, but the combination of the two appear to be oxymoronic to me. Intellect almost mandates you pull your pants up.
The worse offenders of this behavior, and I have nothing against this section of society, are the butch lesbians. It's the equivalent of me donning high-heels, fake boobs, a wig, and stepping out in....style? These women look absolutely nothing like real men-the boobs are a dead giveaway. There is something sick about this thug mentality. How did we get so turned upside down? I have no real advice for a woman who wants to appear to be man-I simply don't know what to say, other than you look utterly ridiculous. A feminine woman has so much to offer-you'll never be me, so stop trying. Again, I have nothing against a woman who is interested in women-but pull your damn pants up.
Each successive generation strives to do other than what their parents did, and I hope the children of Generation Sag decide that wearing your pants just above your knees is just plain dumb, and take things in the opposite direction. Does sagging look cool, sort of. But its association with ignorance and violence make it an endeavor not worth embarking upon. Almost every body of a dead black man you see lying in the street after being riddled with bullets, has his pants down. Why would anyone want to identify with such a thing? Young brothers, don't get me wrong, I support you. I feel that if you want to wear your pants beneath your buttocks with your underwear showing, you should be allowed to. After all, they are your pants, your underwear, and it's your image. Old white men who neither understand nor care about your future shouldn't have the right to tell you not to. But I just think it feeds into a stereotypical myth about black males we just can't afford. If you've decided that sagging is the way to go, at least counterbalance the idiocy by educating yourself. Know more than when Jay-Z's next album drops, or the price of a Maybach-neither of which enhance your existence in a lasting, positive way. Find ways to better your community and help provide a secure future for the next generation, and most of all, please consider PULLING YOUR DAMN PANTS UP!
TPOKW
Here's what President Elect Barack Obama had to say on the matter:
This is what brings me to the silliness of the sagging pants-laws preventing individuals from sagging never saved anyone's lives. And as the P.E. so eloquently stated, there are much larger issues that we should be tackling. Healthcare, education, war and poverty should be higher on the list. If you live in a city where this ordinance was passed and your public school system is a non productive group of buildings occupying land, you should vote your local lawmakers out of office. Must we attempt to legislate every nuance of social behavior?
At first glance, mandating young men pull up their pants sounds like a good idea. But I've seen the television show Cops and just about every fleeing, sagging suspect is betrayed by pants that end up around their knees. For the fat, out of shape, donut devouring law enforcement officers, this is a blessing in disguise. The playing field has now been leveled by a fashion statement. No longer do they have to chase the swift-footed perpetrators through vacant lots and alley ways. After a couple of strides, pants end up around ankles and the pursuit is over.
For me, there's nothing worse than seeing a young male (black or otherwise-black males aren't the only saggers), with his boxers bunched up and the waist band of his pants damn near around his thighs. I often wonder if they keep their brain back there. What heterosexual male wants to see another man's underpants? I certainly don't. Furthermore, what statement are you making? What are you attempting to communicate? I fail to get the message. I surmise it's a way of thumbing your nose at society for social disenfranchisement. Ok, I feel the rebellious sentiment. My generation opted for long hair. But we also read, and studied, and knew things other than what car P-Diddy drove, or who was sheboinking Rhianna. We had an idea of the struggle of black folks and what might be necessary to turn things around. We cared. Generation Sag seem not to care about tomorrow. Their complete focus is on the bling, or how to come up, no matter what the communal price might be.
Don't get me wrong, I considered the sag when it first hit the scene-but then I stopped myself and asked, "Does my mother, or my children need to see me in this light?" Not to mention the fact that I didn't really identify with the crowd that sagged. I've always seen myself as an intellectual (to a certain degree), and those who sagged seemed disinterested in knowledge. Most saggers could be seen on the street corner-I never cared for hanging out on the street. That's not to say that there aren't individuals with high I.Q.'s sagging, but the combination of the two appear to be oxymoronic to me. Intellect almost mandates you pull your pants up.
The worse offenders of this behavior, and I have nothing against this section of society, are the butch lesbians. It's the equivalent of me donning high-heels, fake boobs, a wig, and stepping out in....style? These women look absolutely nothing like real men-the boobs are a dead giveaway. There is something sick about this thug mentality. How did we get so turned upside down? I have no real advice for a woman who wants to appear to be man-I simply don't know what to say, other than you look utterly ridiculous. A feminine woman has so much to offer-you'll never be me, so stop trying. Again, I have nothing against a woman who is interested in women-but pull your damn pants up.
Each successive generation strives to do other than what their parents did, and I hope the children of Generation Sag decide that wearing your pants just above your knees is just plain dumb, and take things in the opposite direction. Does sagging look cool, sort of. But its association with ignorance and violence make it an endeavor not worth embarking upon. Almost every body of a dead black man you see lying in the street after being riddled with bullets, has his pants down. Why would anyone want to identify with such a thing? Young brothers, don't get me wrong, I support you. I feel that if you want to wear your pants beneath your buttocks with your underwear showing, you should be allowed to. After all, they are your pants, your underwear, and it's your image. Old white men who neither understand nor care about your future shouldn't have the right to tell you not to. But I just think it feeds into a stereotypical myth about black males we just can't afford. If you've decided that sagging is the way to go, at least counterbalance the idiocy by educating yourself. Know more than when Jay-Z's next album drops, or the price of a Maybach-neither of which enhance your existence in a lasting, positive way. Find ways to better your community and help provide a secure future for the next generation, and most of all, please consider PULLING YOUR DAMN PANTS UP!
TPOKW
Friday, November 21, 2008
Obama and the One Drop Rule
According to press releases, next year America will have her first president of African descent. Barack Hussein Obama, politically dismantled former P.O.W. and war veteran John McCain and his maverick sidekick Bullwinkle-er, Sarah Palin with the greatest of ease (Joe B. helped too). Now that it's official, America's true racist feelings are emerging in a place where tongues and opinions are rarely held-the cyber-world. Those who have a hard time with a HNIC (if you don't know what that means, watch Stand and Deliver starring Morgan Freeman), are declaring President Obama bi-racial, which begs the question, has any of them ever heard about the One Drop Rule?
For those of you unfamiliar, the one drop rule, which actually was enacted into law in the early 20 th century, stated if you had one drop of African blood, you were African. According to Wikipedia, the 1910–19 decade was the nadir of the Jim Crow era. Tennessee adopted a one-drop statute in 1910, and Louisiana soon followed. Then Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Virginia in 1924, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Oklahoma in 1931. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirtysecond) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto. Madison Grant of Virginia in The Passing of the Great Race wrote: "The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a negro is a negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew."1. Obviously, the rule was important enough to require the enactment of laws. When the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967) outlawed Virginia's ban on interracial marriage, the one drop rule was declared unconstitutional.
The rule may have been considered unconstitutional, but the sentiment behind it remained intact. A mixed race child of African descent is still considered black-even in poverty stricken, war-torn Vietnam. Bi-racial Vietnamese conceived during the war by African-American members of the military are still scorned in Vietnam. Racial identity, as it relates to African blood, is still a major global issue and Obama's election proves that, although we may elect a mixed-race black man to the highest office in our country, accepting his black side is difficult to say the least.
Another point of contention in cyberspace is whether or not he's African-American. Most people say he is not which is the epitome' of ridiculousness because he is more African-American than American born blacks since his father was African. American born blacks are really just Americans. The only connection we share with Africa and Africans exists in the similarities of our skin colors-and one might even argue that those similarities are questionable.
What's most upsetting is that we have to have this conversation at all. Aside from the racial rhetoric, what we all can agree upon is he is darkest President we've had to date. And that darkness is similar to a group of Americans that were once slaves in this country. Disassociate him from black Americans if you wish, there's no arguing the previous two sentences.
I think this is a perfect opportunity for those of us who simply find it hard to accept blacks as fellow countrymen to seek and destroy that internal illness that exists within. That illness that causes you to feel better about yourself because you're not black. I've heard it said in many different ways, I may be poor, but at least I'm not a nigger! or No matter how fat and ugly I get, I can still get me a nigger or Just take it and I'll call the cops and say a nigger stole it. I'm talking about that kind of sickness. Let's find a way to analyze and eradicate it. I know I'm wasting words because racist whites will never give up their animus towards blacks. In some ways, I feel that racist whites are direct descendants of indentured servants who, along with some blacks, arrived prior to slavery and were considered a lessor class of people. It wasn't until the institutionalization of slavery that these whites gained favor amongst the ruling class and were placed in positions of authority over their former fellow (black) indentured servants. The fear of returning to the lower rung of society spawned a hatred for what and who they used to be, and a desire never to return. The mere sight of a slave reminded them of their former less than existence and it was incumbent upon them to prove to the ruling class that they could keep the nigras in their place. Many a slave were beaten, raped, lynched, and murder all in their attempts to demonstrate to the ruling class their ability to maintain order. Well, you can stop now, the ruling class really never saw a difference, and most likely never will.
I don't quite know what the future holds for a country so divided by the simplicity of color-one can only hope that we rise above the pettiness of our dermatological differences and find commonalities that could be instrumental in not only restoring our perception of greatness, but exceeding our previous ideologies and truly building an amazing nation none of us could ever imagined being blinded by something so silly as a one drop rule.
'Nuff said.
TPOKW
Friday, November 07, 2008
No Representation Without Taxation
Read the title again. I know you think you know what it read, but read it again. You probably think it is the same as the phrase coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston circa 1750, but it isn't. It is a phrase that should have found its way into our political lexicon the moment the Christian Conservatives arrived on the scene.
During the past 8 years, the Moral Majority has manipulated the political machine in this country. Credited for Ronald Reagan's victory of Jimmy Carter in 1980 by delivering two-thirds of the white evangelical vote, they have been an influential and effective part of the political climate. But the question that comes to my mind is how is this possible if, as a group, they pay no taxes?
The separation of church and state is a phrase that I've heard practically all my life-and has been one of the most memorable political phrases to date. From my understanding, this is why religious organizations are exempt from paying taxes. If you don't contribute financially to wealth of the nation, why is your hand immersed in government affairs? I certainly don't believe that anyone's views should be discriminated against, provided they are within the boundaries of the law. But matters relating to God, (pick one), should be separate from matters of the state. Yes, Christians are citizens of this nation, but religion and its dogma has its place-in the church and not interlaced throughout branches of government.
If the Religious Right, or the Moral Majority want representation, pony up. The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson could never have amassed the wealth they've attained if they had to pay their fair share in taxes. Yet they were allowed access to the White House and the President and have been influential. The mere fact that the first Presidential Q & A session between now President Elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain was held at the Saddleback church, in my opinion, is a violation of the 'separation of church and state' mantra.
1 The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
With that said, and mandated by the faithful, this should go both ways. The "Moral Majority" should keep it's nose out of matters of the state. Imposing their views upon non believers, and attempting to turn those views into laws violates the very principals for which they fought. They can't have it both ways. Either the government can interfere into their affairs, or vice-versa, or matters of the state are matters of the state, and matters of the church are matters of the church.
Too often the lines get blurred because congregationalists are voters and politicians aren't bold enough to put them in their place. Legally, churches aren't supposed to engage in political affairs. Doing so compromises their tax exempt status. But this didn't stop both John McCain and Barack Obama from participating in a Q & A 'debate' at the Saddleback church in Lake Forest, CA. Both candidates knew that by refusing to participate in the debacle would have alienated a very powerful voting block. At some point someone must send a message to this group and let them know under no uncertain terms are they to support candidates, denounce candidates, or speak of politics in their congregation-ever. There are rules and, like everyone else, they must obey them. After all, it was the church who insisted upon this separation.
At the risk of alienating readers, I'll admit that I am not a religious individual. For lack of a better term one might call me agnostic. In my opinion, we should all be agnostic. Who amongst us can say truly whether or not God exists? If you haven't literally talked to him or seen him, it's pretty safe to say you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists. I'm not talking about hearing your own conscience and attributing it to God. I'm talking about actually hearing a voice that if someone else was in the room they'd hear it as well. We've had too many individuals come along throughout history who've claimed they've heard the voice of God and now they are responsible for communicating the message to the masses. Even man has developed the ability to conference call-God has to have a way to speak to more than one person at a time. But I digress.
To put it bluntly, most evangelists are living, breathing, business men who take advantage of the tax exempt status granted the church to amass untold wealth. That money flows in one direction-from the congregation to the pockets of the church leaders. If a member of the congregation is in financial need, the most the church is able to offer is prayer. Try paying your bills with that. Sometimes, they'll tap the congregation to help said member, but never will they open up the church coffers to help the needy of the congregation. Sadly, most of these individuals are happy to walk away with just the prayers-even though they may have, over the years, contributed thousands of dollars to the church. I don't knock a man his hustle. If you've got people willing to exchange legal tender for that which they could achieve at home, then more power to you. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, ".....religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God." If this is true, what on earth does one need with a church. I don't think Thomas Jefferson envisioned the nonsense that passes for religion today. But to each his own. My position is simple, as an organization pay taxes like the rest or keep your nose out of matters of the state. And as I so eloquently put it, NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION.
Enough said.
TPOKW
Addendum:
A couple of evenings past, a young man of about 20 came to my door selling magazine subscriptions. I know he thought that it was the first time someone had tried to sell me a magazine subscription I didn't want, but unbeknownst to him, I've been staving off individuals like him since I was 20. Anyhow, he began his script the moment I came to the door and I politely listened. At one point in his monologue he asked if I believed in God and my answer was "No." Perplexed, he then asked me, "What are you, Muslim?" Now I know in the the written form of communication there are no long pauses, but I'd like for you, the reader, to take a Final Jeopardy moment and seriously contemplate what that young man asked me, (play Final Jeopardy theme here). Did any of you hear what I heard? Since when is Allah not a deity? Who kicked him out of the line up? How did Muslims become godless people?
This is my problem with religion. With the exception of Buddhism (which really is a lifestyle more so than a religion), each one professes to be the true religion of God. And for the most part, they all pretty much teach the exact same tenets-thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc. If adhered to, there would be no religious wars. No crusades-No religious 'conversions' at the hands of barbaric Conquistadors. Most religious teachings are beautiful, but there implementation leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know why any person with half a brain couldn't see the chasm that exists between religious practices and religious teachings. I don't want to choose sides in the ongoing holy war that exists between Muslims and Christians, but the Christians have all but declared the Muslims a godless- that's what I got from that young man's question. Again, I'm a neutral party here, I think both sides need to clean up their act, but where is it written that any of us have the power to render a people godless? If you expect others to respect your beliefs, you'd better start by respecting the right of others to believe in what they choose-provided those beliefs do not harm others. Otherwise, there will be an ongoing sibling rivalry while each side jockey's to be God's chosen people, (another concept that disturbs me to no end).
I understand why this young man opted to throw God into his sales pitch-religion, being a instrument of control, can sometimes be invoked to aid consumers in loosening their purse strings. I wonder what his response would have been had I said that I was religious and then subsequently order a subscription to Playboy magazine. Hmmm....perhaps I'll try that next time.
®
References:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
During the past 8 years, the Moral Majority has manipulated the political machine in this country. Credited for Ronald Reagan's victory of Jimmy Carter in 1980 by delivering two-thirds of the white evangelical vote, they have been an influential and effective part of the political climate. But the question that comes to my mind is how is this possible if, as a group, they pay no taxes?
The separation of church and state is a phrase that I've heard practically all my life-and has been one of the most memorable political phrases to date. From my understanding, this is why religious organizations are exempt from paying taxes. If you don't contribute financially to wealth of the nation, why is your hand immersed in government affairs? I certainly don't believe that anyone's views should be discriminated against, provided they are within the boundaries of the law. But matters relating to God, (pick one), should be separate from matters of the state. Yes, Christians are citizens of this nation, but religion and its dogma has its place-in the church and not interlaced throughout branches of government.
If the Religious Right, or the Moral Majority want representation, pony up. The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson could never have amassed the wealth they've attained if they had to pay their fair share in taxes. Yet they were allowed access to the White House and the President and have been influential. The mere fact that the first Presidential Q & A session between now President Elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain was held at the Saddleback church, in my opinion, is a violation of the 'separation of church and state' mantra.
1 The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
With that said, and mandated by the faithful, this should go both ways. The "Moral Majority" should keep it's nose out of matters of the state. Imposing their views upon non believers, and attempting to turn those views into laws violates the very principals for which they fought. They can't have it both ways. Either the government can interfere into their affairs, or vice-versa, or matters of the state are matters of the state, and matters of the church are matters of the church.
Too often the lines get blurred because congregationalists are voters and politicians aren't bold enough to put them in their place. Legally, churches aren't supposed to engage in political affairs. Doing so compromises their tax exempt status. But this didn't stop both John McCain and Barack Obama from participating in a Q & A 'debate' at the Saddleback church in Lake Forest, CA. Both candidates knew that by refusing to participate in the debacle would have alienated a very powerful voting block. At some point someone must send a message to this group and let them know under no uncertain terms are they to support candidates, denounce candidates, or speak of politics in their congregation-ever. There are rules and, like everyone else, they must obey them. After all, it was the church who insisted upon this separation.
At the risk of alienating readers, I'll admit that I am not a religious individual. For lack of a better term one might call me agnostic. In my opinion, we should all be agnostic. Who amongst us can say truly whether or not God exists? If you haven't literally talked to him or seen him, it's pretty safe to say you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists. I'm not talking about hearing your own conscience and attributing it to God. I'm talking about actually hearing a voice that if someone else was in the room they'd hear it as well. We've had too many individuals come along throughout history who've claimed they've heard the voice of God and now they are responsible for communicating the message to the masses. Even man has developed the ability to conference call-God has to have a way to speak to more than one person at a time. But I digress.
To put it bluntly, most evangelists are living, breathing, business men who take advantage of the tax exempt status granted the church to amass untold wealth. That money flows in one direction-from the congregation to the pockets of the church leaders. If a member of the congregation is in financial need, the most the church is able to offer is prayer. Try paying your bills with that. Sometimes, they'll tap the congregation to help said member, but never will they open up the church coffers to help the needy of the congregation. Sadly, most of these individuals are happy to walk away with just the prayers-even though they may have, over the years, contributed thousands of dollars to the church. I don't knock a man his hustle. If you've got people willing to exchange legal tender for that which they could achieve at home, then more power to you. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, ".....religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God." If this is true, what on earth does one need with a church. I don't think Thomas Jefferson envisioned the nonsense that passes for religion today. But to each his own. My position is simple, as an organization pay taxes like the rest or keep your nose out of matters of the state. And as I so eloquently put it, NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION.
Enough said.
TPOKW
Addendum:
A couple of evenings past, a young man of about 20 came to my door selling magazine subscriptions. I know he thought that it was the first time someone had tried to sell me a magazine subscription I didn't want, but unbeknownst to him, I've been staving off individuals like him since I was 20. Anyhow, he began his script the moment I came to the door and I politely listened. At one point in his monologue he asked if I believed in God and my answer was "No." Perplexed, he then asked me, "What are you, Muslim?" Now I know in the the written form of communication there are no long pauses, but I'd like for you, the reader, to take a Final Jeopardy moment and seriously contemplate what that young man asked me, (play Final Jeopardy theme here). Did any of you hear what I heard? Since when is Allah not a deity? Who kicked him out of the line up? How did Muslims become godless people?
This is my problem with religion. With the exception of Buddhism (which really is a lifestyle more so than a religion), each one professes to be the true religion of God. And for the most part, they all pretty much teach the exact same tenets-thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc. If adhered to, there would be no religious wars. No crusades-No religious 'conversions' at the hands of barbaric Conquistadors. Most religious teachings are beautiful, but there implementation leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know why any person with half a brain couldn't see the chasm that exists between religious practices and religious teachings. I don't want to choose sides in the ongoing holy war that exists between Muslims and Christians, but the Christians have all but declared the Muslims a godless- that's what I got from that young man's question. Again, I'm a neutral party here, I think both sides need to clean up their act, but where is it written that any of us have the power to render a people godless? If you expect others to respect your beliefs, you'd better start by respecting the right of others to believe in what they choose-provided those beliefs do not harm others. Otherwise, there will be an ongoing sibling rivalry while each side jockey's to be God's chosen people, (another concept that disturbs me to no end).
I understand why this young man opted to throw God into his sales pitch-religion, being a instrument of control, can sometimes be invoked to aid consumers in loosening their purse strings. I wonder what his response would have been had I said that I was religious and then subsequently order a subscription to Playboy magazine. Hmmm....perhaps I'll try that next time.
®
References:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The Incomparable Tim Wise
I became acquainted with Tim Wise's magnificent work one day while listening to KPFK, a progressive and independent, listener supported radio station in Santa Barbara, CA. I was immediately amazed with his approach to race relations in this country, not because he is of European descent, but because he sees things for what they are and has the courage to speak truthfully, even if he is hated by some of his own kind. The appropriately named Mr. Wise, makes me proud to be an American of African descent. Recently, I was falsely accused of threatening someone's life and subsequently arrested on felony charges. I spent less than 3 hours in custody because someone I love deeply immediately posted 8% of the $50,000 bail. I remember feeling like a loser-being cuffed before the officers were even able to determine fault. I can't go into detail because the case is still pending, but suffice it to say I was horrified as I sat in the holding tank and listened to officers discuss amongst themselves the "facts" of the case and how I was such a loser ("He has a job-who'd hire him?).
Reading the words of Tim Wise helped restore my self-esteem. He reminds me that our judicial system has been, since its inception, unjustly tilted against blacks and that, although African-Americans do commit crimes, quite often (as in my case) they are falsely accused and face an uphill battle just to make themselves whole again-if that is even possible. Those that know me personally know that I've defended myself against this injustice in my personal, military, and professional life and through wisdom and sheer luck have emerged scarred and battered but never incarcerated. Once again I'm faced with injustice and must prove to a court what should have been blatantly obvious to the arresting officers. I am certain I will prevail.
I would like to share with you something I read this morning on Mr. Wise's blog. His words, as always, are inspirational so please, take the time to read this entry in its entirety. I am also posting his opening statement on affirmative action from youtube. I am certain you will enjoy this as much as I did.
Much respect to you Mr. Wise.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Good, and Now Back to Work: Avoiding Cynicism and Overconfidence in the Age of Obama
Good, and Now Back to Work:
Avoiding Both Cynicism and Overconfidence in the Age of Obama
By Tim Wise
November 5, 2008
Tonight, after Barack Obama was confirmed as the nation's president-elect, I looked in on my children, as they lay sleeping. Though they are about as politically astute as kids can be, having reached only the ages of 7 and 5, there is no way they will be able to truly appreciate what has just happened in the land they call home. They do not possess the sense of history, or indeed, even a clear understanding of what history means, so as to adequately process what happened this evening, as they slumbered. Even as our oldest cast her first grade vote for Obama in school today, and even as our youngest has become somewhat notorious for pointing to pictures of Sarah Palin on magazines and saying, "There's that crazy lady who hates polar bears," they remain, still, naive as to the nation they have inherited. They do not really understand the tortured history of this place, especially as regards race. Oh they know more than most--to live as my children makes it hard not to--but still, the magnitude of this occasion will likely not catch up to them until Barack Obama is finishing at least his first, if not his second term as president.
But that's OK. Because I know what it means, and will make sure to tell them.
And before detailing what I perceive that meaning to be (both its expansiveness and limitations) let me say this, to some of those on the left--some of my friends and longtime compatriots in the struggle for social justice--who yet insist that there is no difference between Obama and McCain, between Democrats and Republicans, between Biden and Palin: Screw you.
If you are incapable of mustering pride in this moment, and if you cannot appreciate how meaningful this day is for millions of black folks who stood in lines for up to seven hours to vote, then your cynicism has become such an encumbrance as to render you all but useless to the liberation movement. Indeed, those who cannot appreciate what has just transpired are so eaten up with nihilistic rage and hopelessness that I cannot but think that they are a waste of carbon, and actively thieving oxygen that could be put to better use by others.
This election does indeed matter. No, it is not the same as victory against the forces of injustice, and yes, Obama is a heavily compromised candidate, and yes, we will have to work hard to hold him accountable. But it matters nonetheless that he, and not the bloodthirsty bomber McCain, or the Christo-fascist, Palin, managed to emerge victorious.
Those who say it doesn't matter weren't with me on the south side of Chicago this past week, surrounded by a collection of amazing community organizers who go out and do the hard work every day of trying to help create a way out of no way for the marginalized. All of them know that an election is but a part of the solution, a tactic really, in a larger struggle of which they are a daily part; and none of them are so naive as to think that their jobs are now to become a cakewalk because of the election of Barack Obama. But all of them were looking forward to this moment. They haven't the luxury of believing in the quixotic campaigns of Dennis Kucinich, or waiting around for the Green Party to get its act together and become something other than a pathetic caricature, symbolized by the utterly irrelevant and increasingly narcissistic presence of Ralph Nader on the electoral scene. And while Cynthia McKinney remains a pivotal figure in the struggle, the party to which she was tethered this year shows no more ability to sustain movement activity than it was eight years ago, and most everyone working in oppressed communities in this nation knows it.
It's like this y'all: Jesse Jackson was weeping openly on national television. This is a man who was with Dr. King when he was murdered and he was bawling like a baby. So don't tell me this doesn't matter.
John Lewis--who had his head cracked open, has been arrested more times, and has probably spilled far more blood for the cause of justice than all the white, dreadlocked, self-proclaimed anarchists in this country combined--couldn't be more thrilled at what has happened. If he can see it, then frankly, who the hell are we not to?
Those who say this election means nothing, who insist that Obama, because he cozied up to Wall Street, or big business, is just another kind of evil no different than any other, are in serious risk of political self-immolation, and it is a burning they will richly deserve. That the victorious presidential candidate is actually a capitalist (contrary to the fevered imaginations of the right) is no more newsworthy than the fact that rain falls down and grass grows skyward. It is to be properly placed in the "no shit Sherlock," file. That anyone would think it possible for someone who didn't raise hundreds of millions of dollars to win--at this time in our history at least--only suggests that some on the left would prefer to engage politics from a place of aspirational innocence, rather than in the real world, where battles are won or lost.
So let us be clear as to what tonight meant:
It was a defeat for the right-wing echo chamber and its rhetorical stormtroopers, foremost among them Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
It was a defeat for the crazed mobs ever-present at McCain/Palin rallies, what with their venomous libels against Obama, their hate-addled brains spewing forth one after another racist and religiously chauvinistic calumny upon his head and those of his supporters.
It was a defeat for the internet rumor-pimps who insisted to all they could reach with a functioning e-mail address that Obama was not really a citizen. Or perhaps he was, but he was a Muslim, or perhaps not a Muslim, but probably a black supremacist, or maybe not that either, but surely the anti-christ, and most definitely a baby-killer.
It was a defeat for those who believed McCain and Palin would be delivered the victory by the hand of almighty God, because their theological and eschatological vacuity so regularly gets in the way of their ability to think. As such, it was a setback for the religious fascists in the far-right Christian community whose belief that God is on their side has always made them especially dangerous. Now, having lost, perhaps at least some of these will be forced to ponder what went wrong. If we're lucky, perhaps some will suffer the kind of crisis of faith that often prefaces a complete nervous breakdown. Either way, it's nice just to ruin their Young-Earth-Creationist-I-Have-an-Angel-on-My-Shoulder day.
It was a defeat for the demagogues who tried in so many ways to push the buttons of white racism--the old-fashioned kind, or what I call Racism 1.0--by using thinly-veiled racialized language throughout the campaign. Appeals to Joe Six-Pack, "values voters," blue-collar voters, or hockey moms, though never explicitly racialized, were transparent to all but the most obtuse, as were terms like "terrorist" when used to describe Obama. Likewise, the attempt to race-bait the economic crisis by blaming it on loans to poor folks of color through the Community Reinvestment Act, or community activists like the folks at ACORN, failed, and this matters. No, it doesn't mean that white America has rejected racism. Indeed, I have been quite deliberate for months about pointing out the way that racism 1.0 may be traded in only to be replaced by racism 2.0 (which allows whites to still view most folks of color negatively but carve out exceptions for those few who make us feel comfortable and who we see as "different"). And yet, that tonight was a drubbing for that 1.0 version of racism still matters.
And tonight was a victory for a few things too.
It was a victory for youth, and their social and political sensibilities. It was the young, casting away the politics of their parents and even grandparents, and turning the corner to a new day, perhaps naively, and too optimistic about the road from here, but nonetheless in a way that has historically almost always been good for the country. Much as youth were inspired by a relatively moderate John F. Kennedy (who was, on balance, far less progressive than Obama in many ways), and much as they then formed the frontline troops for so much of the social justice activism of the following fifteen years, so too can such a thing be forseen now. That Kennedy may have been quite restrained in his social justice sensibilities did not matter: the young people whose energy he helped unleash took things in their own direction and outgrew him rather quickly in their progression to the left.
Tonight was also a victory for the possibility of greater cross-racial alliance building. Although Obama failed to win most white votes, and although it is no doubt true that many of the whites who did vote for him nonetheless hold to any number of negative and racist stereotypes about the larger black and brown communities of this nation, it it still the case that black, brown and white worked together in this effort as they have rarely done before. And many whites who worked for Obama, precisely because they got to see, and hear, and feel the racist vitriol still animating far too many of our nation's people, will now be wiser for the experience when it comes to understanding how much more work remains to be done on the racial justice front. Let us build on that newfound knowledge, and that newfound energy, and create real white allyship with community-based leaders of color as we move forward in the years to come.
But now for the other side of things.
First and foremost, please know that none of these victories will amount to much unless we do that which needs to be done so as to turn a singular event about one man, into a true social movement (which, despite what some claim, it is not yet and has never been).
And so it is back to work. Oh yes, we can savor the moment for a while, for a few days, perhaps a week. But well before inauguration day we will need to be back on the job, in the community, in the streets, where democracy is made, demanding equity and justice in places where it hasn't been seen in decades, if ever. Because for all the talk of hope and change, there is nothing--absolutely, positively nothing--about real change that is inevitable. And hope, absent real pressure and forward motion to actualize one's dreams, is sterile and even dangerous. Hope, absent commitment is the enemy of change, capable of translating to a giving away of one's agency, to a relinquishing of the need to do more than just show up every few years and push a button or pull a lever.
This means hooking up now with the grass roots organizations in the communities where we live, prioritizing their struggles, joining and serving with their constituents, following leaders grounded in the community who are accountable not to Barack Obama, but the people who helped elect him. Let Obama follow, while the people lead, in other words.
For we who are white it means going back into our white spaces and challenging our brothers and sisters, parents, neighbors, colleagues and friends--and ourselves--on the racial biases that still too often permeate their and our lives, and making sure they know that the success of one man of color does not equate to the eradication of systemic racial inequity.
So are we ready for the heavy lifting? This was, after all, merely the warmup exercise, somewhat akin to stretching before a really long run. Or perhaps it was the first lap, but either way, now the baton has been handed to you, to us. We must not, cannot, afford to drop it. There is too much at stake.
The worst thing that could happen now would be for us to go back to sleep; to allow the cool poise of Obama's prose to lull us into slumber like the cool on the underside of the pillow. For in the light of day, when fully awake, it becomes impossible not to see the incompleteness of the task so far.
So let us begin.
Reading the words of Tim Wise helped restore my self-esteem. He reminds me that our judicial system has been, since its inception, unjustly tilted against blacks and that, although African-Americans do commit crimes, quite often (as in my case) they are falsely accused and face an uphill battle just to make themselves whole again-if that is even possible. Those that know me personally know that I've defended myself against this injustice in my personal, military, and professional life and through wisdom and sheer luck have emerged scarred and battered but never incarcerated. Once again I'm faced with injustice and must prove to a court what should have been blatantly obvious to the arresting officers. I am certain I will prevail.
I would like to share with you something I read this morning on Mr. Wise's blog. His words, as always, are inspirational so please, take the time to read this entry in its entirety. I am also posting his opening statement on affirmative action from youtube. I am certain you will enjoy this as much as I did.
Much respect to you Mr. Wise.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Good, and Now Back to Work: Avoiding Cynicism and Overconfidence in the Age of Obama
Good, and Now Back to Work:
Avoiding Both Cynicism and Overconfidence in the Age of Obama
By Tim Wise
November 5, 2008
Tonight, after Barack Obama was confirmed as the nation's president-elect, I looked in on my children, as they lay sleeping. Though they are about as politically astute as kids can be, having reached only the ages of 7 and 5, there is no way they will be able to truly appreciate what has just happened in the land they call home. They do not possess the sense of history, or indeed, even a clear understanding of what history means, so as to adequately process what happened this evening, as they slumbered. Even as our oldest cast her first grade vote for Obama in school today, and even as our youngest has become somewhat notorious for pointing to pictures of Sarah Palin on magazines and saying, "There's that crazy lady who hates polar bears," they remain, still, naive as to the nation they have inherited. They do not really understand the tortured history of this place, especially as regards race. Oh they know more than most--to live as my children makes it hard not to--but still, the magnitude of this occasion will likely not catch up to them until Barack Obama is finishing at least his first, if not his second term as president.
But that's OK. Because I know what it means, and will make sure to tell them.
And before detailing what I perceive that meaning to be (both its expansiveness and limitations) let me say this, to some of those on the left--some of my friends and longtime compatriots in the struggle for social justice--who yet insist that there is no difference between Obama and McCain, between Democrats and Republicans, between Biden and Palin: Screw you.
If you are incapable of mustering pride in this moment, and if you cannot appreciate how meaningful this day is for millions of black folks who stood in lines for up to seven hours to vote, then your cynicism has become such an encumbrance as to render you all but useless to the liberation movement. Indeed, those who cannot appreciate what has just transpired are so eaten up with nihilistic rage and hopelessness that I cannot but think that they are a waste of carbon, and actively thieving oxygen that could be put to better use by others.
This election does indeed matter. No, it is not the same as victory against the forces of injustice, and yes, Obama is a heavily compromised candidate, and yes, we will have to work hard to hold him accountable. But it matters nonetheless that he, and not the bloodthirsty bomber McCain, or the Christo-fascist, Palin, managed to emerge victorious.
Those who say it doesn't matter weren't with me on the south side of Chicago this past week, surrounded by a collection of amazing community organizers who go out and do the hard work every day of trying to help create a way out of no way for the marginalized. All of them know that an election is but a part of the solution, a tactic really, in a larger struggle of which they are a daily part; and none of them are so naive as to think that their jobs are now to become a cakewalk because of the election of Barack Obama. But all of them were looking forward to this moment. They haven't the luxury of believing in the quixotic campaigns of Dennis Kucinich, or waiting around for the Green Party to get its act together and become something other than a pathetic caricature, symbolized by the utterly irrelevant and increasingly narcissistic presence of Ralph Nader on the electoral scene. And while Cynthia McKinney remains a pivotal figure in the struggle, the party to which she was tethered this year shows no more ability to sustain movement activity than it was eight years ago, and most everyone working in oppressed communities in this nation knows it.
It's like this y'all: Jesse Jackson was weeping openly on national television. This is a man who was with Dr. King when he was murdered and he was bawling like a baby. So don't tell me this doesn't matter.
John Lewis--who had his head cracked open, has been arrested more times, and has probably spilled far more blood for the cause of justice than all the white, dreadlocked, self-proclaimed anarchists in this country combined--couldn't be more thrilled at what has happened. If he can see it, then frankly, who the hell are we not to?
Those who say this election means nothing, who insist that Obama, because he cozied up to Wall Street, or big business, is just another kind of evil no different than any other, are in serious risk of political self-immolation, and it is a burning they will richly deserve. That the victorious presidential candidate is actually a capitalist (contrary to the fevered imaginations of the right) is no more newsworthy than the fact that rain falls down and grass grows skyward. It is to be properly placed in the "no shit Sherlock," file. That anyone would think it possible for someone who didn't raise hundreds of millions of dollars to win--at this time in our history at least--only suggests that some on the left would prefer to engage politics from a place of aspirational innocence, rather than in the real world, where battles are won or lost.
So let us be clear as to what tonight meant:
It was a defeat for the right-wing echo chamber and its rhetorical stormtroopers, foremost among them Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
It was a defeat for the crazed mobs ever-present at McCain/Palin rallies, what with their venomous libels against Obama, their hate-addled brains spewing forth one after another racist and religiously chauvinistic calumny upon his head and those of his supporters.
It was a defeat for the internet rumor-pimps who insisted to all they could reach with a functioning e-mail address that Obama was not really a citizen. Or perhaps he was, but he was a Muslim, or perhaps not a Muslim, but probably a black supremacist, or maybe not that either, but surely the anti-christ, and most definitely a baby-killer.
It was a defeat for those who believed McCain and Palin would be delivered the victory by the hand of almighty God, because their theological and eschatological vacuity so regularly gets in the way of their ability to think. As such, it was a setback for the religious fascists in the far-right Christian community whose belief that God is on their side has always made them especially dangerous. Now, having lost, perhaps at least some of these will be forced to ponder what went wrong. If we're lucky, perhaps some will suffer the kind of crisis of faith that often prefaces a complete nervous breakdown. Either way, it's nice just to ruin their Young-Earth-Creationist-I-Have-an-Angel-on-My-Shoulder day.
It was a defeat for the demagogues who tried in so many ways to push the buttons of white racism--the old-fashioned kind, or what I call Racism 1.0--by using thinly-veiled racialized language throughout the campaign. Appeals to Joe Six-Pack, "values voters," blue-collar voters, or hockey moms, though never explicitly racialized, were transparent to all but the most obtuse, as were terms like "terrorist" when used to describe Obama. Likewise, the attempt to race-bait the economic crisis by blaming it on loans to poor folks of color through the Community Reinvestment Act, or community activists like the folks at ACORN, failed, and this matters. No, it doesn't mean that white America has rejected racism. Indeed, I have been quite deliberate for months about pointing out the way that racism 1.0 may be traded in only to be replaced by racism 2.0 (which allows whites to still view most folks of color negatively but carve out exceptions for those few who make us feel comfortable and who we see as "different"). And yet, that tonight was a drubbing for that 1.0 version of racism still matters.
And tonight was a victory for a few things too.
It was a victory for youth, and their social and political sensibilities. It was the young, casting away the politics of their parents and even grandparents, and turning the corner to a new day, perhaps naively, and too optimistic about the road from here, but nonetheless in a way that has historically almost always been good for the country. Much as youth were inspired by a relatively moderate John F. Kennedy (who was, on balance, far less progressive than Obama in many ways), and much as they then formed the frontline troops for so much of the social justice activism of the following fifteen years, so too can such a thing be forseen now. That Kennedy may have been quite restrained in his social justice sensibilities did not matter: the young people whose energy he helped unleash took things in their own direction and outgrew him rather quickly in their progression to the left.
Tonight was also a victory for the possibility of greater cross-racial alliance building. Although Obama failed to win most white votes, and although it is no doubt true that many of the whites who did vote for him nonetheless hold to any number of negative and racist stereotypes about the larger black and brown communities of this nation, it it still the case that black, brown and white worked together in this effort as they have rarely done before. And many whites who worked for Obama, precisely because they got to see, and hear, and feel the racist vitriol still animating far too many of our nation's people, will now be wiser for the experience when it comes to understanding how much more work remains to be done on the racial justice front. Let us build on that newfound knowledge, and that newfound energy, and create real white allyship with community-based leaders of color as we move forward in the years to come.
But now for the other side of things.
First and foremost, please know that none of these victories will amount to much unless we do that which needs to be done so as to turn a singular event about one man, into a true social movement (which, despite what some claim, it is not yet and has never been).
And so it is back to work. Oh yes, we can savor the moment for a while, for a few days, perhaps a week. But well before inauguration day we will need to be back on the job, in the community, in the streets, where democracy is made, demanding equity and justice in places where it hasn't been seen in decades, if ever. Because for all the talk of hope and change, there is nothing--absolutely, positively nothing--about real change that is inevitable. And hope, absent real pressure and forward motion to actualize one's dreams, is sterile and even dangerous. Hope, absent commitment is the enemy of change, capable of translating to a giving away of one's agency, to a relinquishing of the need to do more than just show up every few years and push a button or pull a lever.
This means hooking up now with the grass roots organizations in the communities where we live, prioritizing their struggles, joining and serving with their constituents, following leaders grounded in the community who are accountable not to Barack Obama, but the people who helped elect him. Let Obama follow, while the people lead, in other words.
For we who are white it means going back into our white spaces and challenging our brothers and sisters, parents, neighbors, colleagues and friends--and ourselves--on the racial biases that still too often permeate their and our lives, and making sure they know that the success of one man of color does not equate to the eradication of systemic racial inequity.
So are we ready for the heavy lifting? This was, after all, merely the warmup exercise, somewhat akin to stretching before a really long run. Or perhaps it was the first lap, but either way, now the baton has been handed to you, to us. We must not, cannot, afford to drop it. There is too much at stake.
The worst thing that could happen now would be for us to go back to sleep; to allow the cool poise of Obama's prose to lull us into slumber like the cool on the underside of the pillow. For in the light of day, when fully awake, it becomes impossible not to see the incompleteness of the task so far.
So let us begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)